The logs with less offset and some lower timing values (although max advance peaked higher), as you said were hard to compare (and I agree) since I changed boost as well as ign. correction. Take a look at my latest logs where I only changed ign. correction for a better comparison.

Referencing my latest logs: even though I'm effectively running more total advance throughout the whole RPM range compared to the default values... CPS offsetting simply isn't effective and doesn't work and is learned out by the car? What exactly is going on then? I guess I'm confused with your logic

I had intended this thread for those familiar with analyzing logs. For example, looking at the DME boost target tells you the car was at WOT. Showing before and after run data throws off the scaling making it harder to analyze.

The colors are different because I didn't save the last file and had to remake the chart. Really I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. :

Mike

Mike if your testing with the V3 you have then why not post logs from it's user software . Then we could see the actual values and not have to manually 'add in' any offsets applied by the tune for things such as timing and boost.

It will remove all the confusion people are having with your excel graphing skills and since you seam to have concluded an open and shut case that cps is learned out then you'll easily slam the door on those that are calling your claims BS.

But we all know if you did that then the data could not be skewed to show the results you want it to show.......

Mike if your testing with the V3 you have then why not post logs from it's user software . Then we could see the actual values and not have to manually 'add in' any offsets applied by the tune for things such as timing and boost.

I own a JB3 and am very happy with it, but over a week ago Mike made some claims and promised to back up those claims with data. Those claims were that monitoring knock through just the total ignition time advance is not always sufficient and that the DME learns around the CPS offset that the procede uses.

So far the logs that have been posted really don't address either of those two points and as far as I am concerned the ball has been in your court for several weeks now and during that time Shiv and other procede users have posted countless logs while we are still looking at the same two logs from N54Tech.

Starting to get a little bit frustrated as a JB3 user, I really don't care about sides but if one side is going to make claims don't let everyone hang in the wind while it takes you several weeks to gather logs to back up those claims.

That is fair enough, but we've posted some of the data and explained the variance issue. Work continues, and hopefully controlled dyno testing will give us the run to run repeatability to irrefutably show how CPS offsetting is learned out.

On the second issue, timing drops not being indicative of "knock retard". I haven't put together much data on it as it's a complex issue. But here are a couple examples. Here are two V3 "Stage 3" run files. One with 100% CPS, one with 50% CPS. Both indicate sudden timing drops. If this was actual knock, power output should dramatically drop, yet the accompanying dyno charts for each look impressively smooth. These sudden timing drops don't appear to indicate knock at all.

Mike if your testing with the V3 you have then why not post logs from it's user software . Then we could see the actual values and not have to manually 'add in' any offsets applied by the tune for things such as timing and boost.

It will remove all the confusion people are having with your excel graphing skills and since you seam to have concluded an open and shut case that cps is learned out then you'll easily slam the door on those that are calling your claims BS.

But we all know if you did that then the data could not be skewed to show the results you want it to show.......

We have a Rev1 that does not datalog these values. You do bring up an interesting point. Up until seeing the Rev1 in action I had no idea the "logs" were just Excel/CSV data files that anyone could manipulate. In that regard they are no more convincing than the BT logs.

I made and cut/pasted the chart in to paint as a JPG, and closed excel without saving it. I'm sure you have good intentions towards transparency but like I said the DME boost target tells you the same information. The ECU only calls for 140+ KPA of boost at wide open throttle. With your charts and Shiv's it would be nice to see DME boost target and DME boost if we're going to have a transparent analysis.

We have a Rev1 that does not datalog these values. You do bring up an interesting point. Up until seeing the Rev1 in action I had no idea the "logs" were just Excel/CSV data files that anyone could manipulate. In that regard they are no more convincing than the BT logs.

Mike

Mike,

That's a stretch, now Shiv & his customers are altering the data to support their theory......

I was pointing out that if you presented the data in the same format as others are presenting it then it would be easier to compare.

And yes they are much more convincing than BT logs as they all show the same data, in the same format, with similar scaling etc.

On the second issue, timing drops not being indicative of "knock retard". I haven't put together much data on it as it's a complex issue. But here are a couple examples. Here are two V3 "Stage 3" run files. One with 100% CPS, one with 50% CPS. Both indicate sudden timing drops. If this was actual knock, power output should dramatically drop, yet the accompanying dyno charts for each look impressively smooth. These sudden timing drops don't appear to indicate knock at all.

Since there is so much variance in the data, it seemed good way to study it was to look at the total timing advance during a run. So here are two comparable runs (cropped so min and max RPM recorded match up), with the only difference between them being 100% offset vs. 0% offset. If the format works I can add the other runs in for master averages, these just happen to be the first run of batch each I picked. Like I said earlier all of the runs are all over the place which may just be due to the 91 octane and Stage 3 boost levels, but the averages should give us a good picture of what is really going on.

Anyway the net result is that 0% CPS offset resulted in 3.43 degrees average timing advance, while 100% CPS offset resulted in 3.49 degrees average timing advance. Hardly any difference at all.

Anyway the net result is that 0% CPS offset resulted in 3.43 degrees average timing advance, while 100% CPS offset resulted in 3.49 degrees average timing advance. Hardly any difference at all.

Did you use an non-standard Zip program as it is coming back corrupt?

Anyway, since you do not have Rev II I would assume that these are BT logs. As such, the compensation for CPS offsetting is not applied so the 100% CF would have run less timing, once the offsetting values would be applied which the BT tool knows nothing about, thus countering your claim.

Anyway, since you do not have Rev II I would assume that these are BT logs. As such, the compensation for CPS offsetting is not applied so the 100% CF would have run less timing, once the offsetting values would be applied which the BT tool knows nothing about, thus countering your claim.

And just for SaG, were both runs adapted?

Opens fine here? CPS offset and a V3 log is included. The runs are adapted but if we agree on the presentation I can capture data this way on the dyno for a fuller picture. That will also give us a dyno reference to look for power dips, etc.

Opens fine here? CPS offset and a V3 log is included. The runs are adapted but if we agree on the presentation I can capture data this way on the dyno for a fuller picture. That will also give us a dyno reference to look for power dips, etc.

Mike

As mentioned, regular zipping didn't work...

Why present that unless tring to confuse people? A maximum of 6 degrees advance at 3200 RPM is not a real pull. To be frank, I will always try and have an open mind but when presented with what I have heard in the last week or so, I am becoming skeptical of motives.

I am disappointed with being being fed lies to promote an effort to support BMS's claims. I was told there was a proprietary method of controlling timng and it was direct. I attempted to support that notion only to waste time and recently to learn it was a complete fabrication.

BTW, let Terry know I want my $45 back (for the burner that did not work with my laptop).

Why present that unless tring to confuse people? A maximum of 6 degrees advance at 3200 RPM is not a real pull. To be frank, I will always try and have an open mind but when presented with what I have heard in the last week or so, I am becoming skeptical of motives.

I am disappointed with being being fed lies to promote an effort to support BMS's claims. I was told there was a proprietary method of controlling timng and it was direct. I attempted to support that notion only to waste time and recently to learn it was a complete fabrication.

BTW, let Terry know I want my $45 back (for the burner that did not work with my laptop).

What do you mean by not a real pull? Some logs had 6 degrees at 3200rpm, some had more like 2. If you mix them all up we'll get the average over many runs. This method of timing evaluation seems like the way to go but I'm open to discussion on it. It is in Excel so if a mistake was made in the formulas, etc, do please correct. Adding the offset in was a manual process.

As always any customer service inquiries for orders from other vendors need to go to those vendors. I don't have your $45

What do you mean by not a real pull? Some logs had 6 degrees at 3200rpm, some had more like 2. If you mix them all up we'll get the average over many runs. This method of timing evaluation seems like the way to go but I'm open to discussion on it. It is in Excel so if a mistake was made in the formulas, etc, do please correct. Adding the offset in was a manual process.

As always any customer service inquiries for orders from other vendors need to go to those vendors. I don't have your $45

I have never had a log as pathetic as that even with a JB3 (joke applied). In other words, it doesn't seem like a valid pull or one to discuss. Seriously, six degrees maximum timing????? I get more timing in 110 temps and maximum boost.

I have never had a log as pathetic as that even with a JB3 (joke applied). In other words, it doesn't seem like a valid pull or one to discuss. Seriously, six degrees maximum timing????? I get more timing in 110 temps and maximum boost.

BTW, the $45 was a joke and Terry can keep it.

No worries, figured it was a joke

You guys are killing me Did you review the logs in the first post? 1000 = 10 degrees of timing? The V3 is running something like 0 degrees in spots pre-offset and the JB3 -2 degrees in spots.

Are either of you running Stage 3, on 91 octane, in 100 degree ambient temperatures?

Here is a log that was posted here that illustrates how much timing moves around by gear. Almost a 10 degree drop in parts by RPM. Most telling is that this is completely different than what we see in same gear dyno pulls. Mind you this is also with 3 degrees of offset in place.

This demonstrates the ECU's reliance on knock sensor feedback, stock or modified, with or without CPS offsetting in place.